Well, I interpreted the word 'honour' to mean that Free Software lovers won't give you respect, not that they will violate your rights. So in one sense, they don't respect your right to write proprietary code.
Of course, I believe Stallman does respect your right to write proprietary code. If you work for a company which needs software, you write it, the company owes it, and runs it and Stallman respects that process.
It's just once you cross a 'magic' line that so many people start to misunderstand Stallman. It's when you give (or sell) that software to someone else. Is it right for you to say, "I'm going to give this software to you, but you can't run it on any computer you like, and you can't make any changes to it, you can't let anyone else look at it, and most importantly, you can't share it with anyone else.
There are a lot of people who think it is perfectly ethical to make these limitations. Stallman is not one of those people. Once you give him software, he believes he has the right to run the software for any (legal) purpose, that he has the right to modify the software to run as he wants it, and that he has the right to read the code and learn from it. And as importantly, he has the right to share the software with anyone else of his choosing. He believes he has all these *ethical* rights.
It turns out that he might not have the *legal* right to do all these things. So he follows the law, AND he follows his conscience. And he encourages others to do the right thing. And for this, he is harassed, poked fun of, and maligned. He is called crazy.
He is an idealist, and perhaps he is crazy that the ideals of freedom and of sharing can continue to thrive in the world of software. But I think he prefers to see the world as full of potential, rather than succumbing to despair and fear.
Exactly, Stallman believes in forced sharing, which is not freedom.
Stallman does not believe is forced sharing, but you are right: that would not be freedom.
Stallman does believe that if you have something (like software) and you want to share it with someone else, you should be allowed to do that. Right now there are laws against that. I can't give you a copy of a non-free program (say, Microsoft Word). Or, rather, I can't share the program without breaking the law.
"Freedom" in his mind is giving one person the right to take the hard work of another person and use it for themselves, regardless of whether or not the original creator wanted to share his work.
Name one case where Stallman takes something over the objection of the original creator!? Software? If a programmer writes code and licenses it under the GPL or LGPL or BSD or any other Free License, how can you suggest that the creator did not want to share his work?
Have you read anything that Stallman has written, or have you just been listening to third parties call him names?
Thanks for that, but that's not what I was looking for. I'd like a reference to RMS's last post which contains a personal attack against Miguel.
I found it by finding Miguel's blog where the slashdot comment is repeated, but there is a link to http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/. I followed it, but it has a content-full post with no personal attacks.
The link you just provided is a bit surprising, but it isn't written by RMS. The quote is definitely making the rounds: I read about it yesterday, and Google is turning up many more commentators referring to it.
For example, Thom Holwerda (http://www.osnews.com/story/22225) thinks RMS has 'crossed a line' and the FSF should 'removed him from the stage' and that 'he has lost touch with reality'
It seems to me as a spectator that name-calling is very alive and well here, as is the postured over-reaction on the part of non-participants. Miguel offers this somewhat dippy comment: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Sep-23.html about how God loves all creatures, including Richard Stallman. The funny thing is, he suggests that RMS might want to talk about how to improve 'Free and Open Source Software', as if RMS has never made any suggestions in that line.
I am responding to RMS's last post which is pretty much content free, but does contain another personal attack against me.
Could you give a reference, please?
I read the OP, and I'm familiar with many (older) articles and essays written by RMS. I've never seen RMS make a *personal* attack. I have seen people react to his strong but very nuanced perspective on morals as if they were personal attacks. I've started to understand that other, reasonable, people can interpret his statements very personally, so if you feel attacked, I don't hold it against you.
I have not read anything written by you, so you are establishing a first impression (for me). You say that RMS has "makes up facts" but you link to what is primarily a retraction. Could you be more clear about which facts RMS has made up? I'd like to think that you can forgive a mistake, if it is admitted.
Lastly, you say that RMS attacks his own community, supporting this claim with a footnote about the distinction between "open source" and "free software" being a non-issue. It seems to me that RMS has been very clear that there is an issue, from his perspective. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
Now you may have a different perspective, as is your right. But since RMS has his perspective, and his preference is perfectly clear, I'd really hesitate to say that he attacks his own community on this issue. In my mind, his community is made up of the supporters of free software, and doesn't contain those who prefer open source.
In summary, RMS doesn't make personal attacks on anyone, much less his own community and he doesn't make up facts. If you think differently, I have an open mind, but I need more than your word.
Furthermore, I've seen plenty of startups and even some actors and such that have embraced newer business models that don't necessarily depend on charging for content. I think the companies are terrified of this concept because this generally requires the content to actually be good to get the public to consume it. If the public isn't consuming it, you don't get advertisers and such. Most (not all) products and services out there have required the public to pay first. This was fine back in the day when good customer relations was key to keeping up sales.
I'm not sure I follow your version of history. If you're talking about the history of 'content' then some of the oldest existing business models do not depend on charging for content. Radio stole recorded performances and gave the content away for free. Eventually they had to pay composers (but not performers), and that's still the business model used today. They don't charge for content, and the content isn't famous (on slashdot anyway) for being good. But people still consume it, so they get advertisers. Broadcast TV doesn't charge for content, yet the same business model is in play here too. So 'back in the day when....' does not refer to a time when providers charged for content universally.
Yes it's true that some business models 'back in the day' charged for content, just as some do today. And yes today we have some companies trying government intervention and/or litigation as a way to get the money, just as we did 'back in the day'.
You seem like someone who would enjoy (and benefit from) reading Lawrence Lessigs' book Free Culture (see http://www.free-culture.cc/toc/) which details some of the history of 'mere copyists' and content 'pirates' who are today's litigants. I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but I don't really think you have a strong grip on the history of content providers. And since I'd like you to succeed in convincing the people who hear you, I think you'd be better off with more historical fact, rather than historical romanticizing.
Just my.02 cents (worth even less these days since George Vaccaro got done with Verizon)
As someone who changed his name (in the US) I'd like to modify your perspective a bit.
My name is what I say it is among my friends, but that's it, and that's true only because I'm a nice guy. I say my name is 'Ben' so they call me 'Ben'. Not 'Benjamin' not 'BJ' not 'Dude' or 'Bud' or 'Junior'.
I had one acquaintance who liked the name 'Benny' better. I told her I didn't like that name but it made no difference to her. My name stopped being what I said it was and became what *she* said it was, at least as far as she was concerned.
And that experience is replicated with other 'non-friends' like governments. If I want to get a mortgage and buy a house, or if I'd like to drive a car, or travel to a different country (like the UK) the name 'Ben' will not work.
The United Kingdom will not allow me to enter their country without documentation. My government will not grant that documentation with 'any name I choose to call myself'. In practical terms, my name is what the government calls me; it isn't what I call myself (or tell others to call me)
I agree with many of the other suggestions found here, and I'm not trying to repeat any of them. I'll suggest that your reading list contain a bit more information than people are generating here. Consider adding to the bibliographic information on your list details like: * Are there exercises? With answers?
* What are the pre-requisites for attempting to read, and for best understanding. Be honest here, a student can always decide to ignore your 'best advice'.
* Is this a mainstream topic, or (currently considered) a sideline.
* Contents include statement of theorems? Includes proofs? Rigorous or intuitive?
* Is the book mostly on a specific mathematical subject, a range of subjects, or mostly not mathematical (but history, or entertaining instead)
I think if you aren't going to assign reading, but you want to make the book list enticing, you'll be more successful with this kind of information. Your students may not yet have the sophistication to know that so called math books can have a huge range of styles.
A way you might collect this information over time is to require a book-report from the student that contains the answers to those questions a requirement to collect your extra-credit. Then either edit it or include it wholesale into your bibliography.
I'm a big fan of the following books: ********** *Geometrical Vectors, Gabriel Weinreich, 1998
Exercises, no answers
Contains statement of theorems, with intuitive proofs.
Subject matter: Specific to one area: Vector Calculus. This is a non-standard perspective on a mainstream area.
Prerequisites: For reading, some mathematical maturity. For best understanding, exposure to the standard treatment of Calculus or Vector Calculus. ISBN 0226890481
********** *What is the name of this book? Raymond Smullyan, 1986 One several logic puzzle books
Exercises (puzzles) with answers
No theorems
Subject matter: one area: Predicate Logic
Prerequisites: For reading: none. For best understanding: Exposure to predicate calculus, or other basic symbolic logic
ISBN 0671628321
Of course it'll be suggested elsewhere, but I haven't see it yet: Alice in Wonderland, just for fun. (And I can't help but emphasizing Godel, Escher, Bach)
My dad bought me this one... ********** *The Mathematics of Juggling by Burkard Polster, 2002
Exercises
Theorems, with proofs
Subject matter: Juggling Patterns and Bell Ringing. These are not mainstream subject areas.
Prerequisites: For reading: strong mathematical sophistication or dedicated experience juggling (real objects in your hands) For best understanding: I wouldn't know... I don't think I've got it.:-)
ISBN 0387955135
********** *The Trachtenberg Speed System of Basic Mathematics, Trachtenberg I found this book for a few bucks on a sale rack somewhere, but the hardback is selling for about $80 on amazon. Ouch! It has the sad and gripping story of Jakow Trachtenberg, who was a prisoner in a work camp during WWII. That is where he developed this particular system of mental arithmetic. There are no 'theorems' but the system is justified almost well enough to be proved in the text (after several chapters that have only an explanation of the technique).
If your students are now like I was then, then some like math, think they are good at math, but aren't the best at adding and subtracting. It always felt like I should be better, and I would have loved a way to get better.
ISBN: 0313232008
Hope this helps. I'd love a copy of your compiled list! Consider posting it back to this Slashdot topic, if you have thick enough skin to weather the inevitable criticism.:-)
You could build an Golomb ruler of any length you want pretty easily in a different way. Put ticks at 0,1,3,5,7,15,...2^{n}-1
(I think) This is a Golomb ruler of order n with length 2^{n)-1. Proof: We need to show if we pick four tick marks, and the distance between the first two equals the distance between the second two then the points are equal.
Pick points nm and pq. Let's also assume that np. I can assume nm because I measure distances between different points, and I can assume np because the pairs of points are different. (If n=p, and m!=q, then I'll have to renumber my ruler from the other end)
if (2^{m}-1) - (2^{n}-1) = (2^{q}-1) - (2^{p}-1) then
2^m - 2^n = 2^q -2^p, and then factor out the largest common power of 2, which is 2^n
(2^{m-n} -1} = (2^{q-n} - 2^{p-n}
m-n != 0, so the left hand side is odd. But q-n!=0 and p-n!=0 so the number on the right is even.
(2^{m-n} -1} =2^{p-n} * (2^{q-p} -1)
m-n != 0 (because nm) so the number on the left is odd.
p-n != 0, so the number on the right is even. This is a contradiction, showing that my n,m, and p,q cannot measure the same distance.
QED.
The problem is to get the order high, you have to have an exponentially longer ruler. Instead of length 480 for order 25, my ruler is 2^25 - 1 = 33_554_431
you could have 0 6 14.5 19.5 36 45.5 73 78.5 80 80.5 83 95.5 103.5 107 128 145 158 177.... you get the idea. (I hope)
This new ruler (with rational numbers) has the same order (same number of ticks) and if it isn't a Golomb ruler then the original isn't either. Since it is shorter by half, the original ruler isn't optimal. But this one isn't either, because we can do it again:
0 3 7.25 9.75....
(Check my math(logic) -- I've never heard of Golomb rulers before today, so I could easily make a stupid mistake)
Well, I don't think so. Being biased based on the color of skin is not a very good definition of racism, except from a very provincial perspective.
Racism is being biased by race; there are many factors besides skin tone that an individual may use to determine race: it's very subjective. And, I'd like to say, also very cultural.
The example that comes to mind is the (in)famous discrimination that the Irish experienced in (say) New York during the mid to late 1800s. "Irish need not apply" signs weren't posted because of their skin tone.
So I see a tall, thin black man and decide not to bet that I'd beat him in a game of one-on-one basketball. Is that racial bias (I'm a tall, thin white man); is also it racism? By looking at him and trying to assess my chances of beating him in a basketball game, have I really committed as deep cultural sin as 'racism'.
You tell me, after you're done laughing at the question.
Think about this question; answer it, before you continue to read. If I had to bet money on the game (of course, I'd play basketball with a black man, do you think I'm racist or somethign? oh right:-) and I chose to bet on him rather than me, am I guilty of 'racism'? Since I don't have the luxury of waiting for your answer to this question and tailoring my reply accordingly, I'll make a few guesses, and respond individually.
Strawman One: Yes it is racism! Simply knowing that a man is black does not mean you should assume he is a better basketball player than you. You are implying that all a tall black man is good for is playing basketball!
My response: Nope. Not my implication: your inference. Would you think that the only thing white people are good for is playing basketball if I bet on me?
Strawman Two: Yes it is racism. Any assessment of athleticism based on skin tone is stupid. There's a 50-50 chance of you winning against him.
My response: Maybe for the spectators, but I know alot about how I play basketball. You might have to assume I'm a average guy, but I know more.
Strawman Three:Yes, it's racism, but not against blacks. Being racially biased in favor of someone isn't racism against them. It's racism against their alternative groups. So all you've done is confuse the issue of favoring the chances of a black person in a basketball game (not racist) with diminishing the talents of (in my case) white people. That's the racist part. And it's just as wrong to be racist against white as it is to be racist against blacks. You should base your decision on something other than race!
My response; Here's where I think we agree in meaning even if we can't agree on the phrases. The racial bias is a marker for some kind of racial injustice, but it gets a bit complicated to find the 'right' answer to these dilemmas (I suppose I could just skip the bet). So while I might have the impulse to bet against myself, I really ought to use more relevant information before I choose to bet against myself. That's being racially biased without being racist.
Strawman Four: You're not being racist by betting against yourself, you're just going to throw the game
Interesting. Since I've grown up with license plates being a fact of life, I've never thought about the privacy opportunities that would be possible if there were no license plates. Instead, I've wondered why there hasn't been a push to put RFID tags in license plates.
My reasoning is that since the plates are already publicly displayed, instead of police forces spending bongo bucks on cameras and OCR software, we could put the RFID tag in the plate and use cheap reading technology to acquire the license number.
I recognize that this is a(nother) scope creep: automating the reading/tracking of license plates means all sorts of interesting applications would be possible. I live in England, and we have speed cameras (and in some places, average speed cameras). I live in London, where the congestion charge and "low emission zone" fees are currently in force. If vehicle RFID readers were widely deployed, there could be a more flexible charging of those use fees (or taxes?).
I'm not sure how I feel about the issue. I am very uncomfortable with giving law enforcement more data than is available to defendants. I have a deep suspicion that police officers and (in the US) district attorneys care much more about convictions than justice. I also have deep suspicions that uniform collection of (e.g.) speeding cars does not lead to uniform (i.e. equal) enforcement. I do not think it is a good idea for the police/DA to have complete records of every speeding car, and then have them pick and choose who will receive a ticket. I also think it is unethical for the police/DA to pick someone up of suspicion of a crime (say disturbing the peace) and then run their plates through the database and discover they were speeding 3 days ago, and charge them for speeding. I worry about the perception that if you go to a political demonstration, you'll get "the book" thrown at you.
I was very much in favor of "speed cameras" because I thought it would result in even enforcement. I know now that it does not. For some reason the system of speed cameras still allows for variable enforcement, and so gives leverage to the police/DA to prosecute non-crimes.
Perhaps I am just too suspicious of our boys and girls in blue.
After listening to my father (adjunct faculty in the Math Department) complain about new editions ONLY changing the numbers of the exercises, and NEVER correcting typos in the text, I have come to believe something different.
The reason the second hand market needs to be suppressed is not because PUBLISHERS are greedy. It's because PROFESSORS and UNIVERSITIES are lazy (or cheap). [Disclaimer: perhaps it's true that they don't get paid enough to do the work they shirk.]
The reason the books have intrinsic value to the student is the main body of text. The reason the books have value to the teacher/school is the exercises. Yet the teacher gets the text for free from the publisher, and normally gets a copy with the answers to the exercises. They get something of high value, but pay nothing? TANSTAAFL applies.
Students may have standing to complain about the cost of a Calculus text where the curriculum hasn't changed since 1860 (WAG), but teachers (in my humble opinion -- please enlighten me with constructive criticism of my argument)... but teachers have no standing to complain that the exercises numbers have changed, so they have to force their students to buy new texts. In other words, teachers "force" students to pay the publisher to do the job they (teachers) could do themselves: creating homework sets.
This "problem" can be quickly and easily solved by teachers who don't use the exercises in the book at all. Put a copy of the solutions in the reserve reading library (ask your best student to TeX a copy and post it on the class' website?) to allow the exercises to fulfill a useful teaching purpose: worked examples, to the standard you require on exams.
So teachers shouldn't complain about this student/publisher money transfer. Instead, they should smile with economic glee that they have found a way to cheapen their expertise and knowledge to the point that they do not get compensated. The money goes straight from the consumer (student) to the producer (publisher). Aren't markets marvelous!
As I said, this is only my opinion. Harsh and bitter as it may sound, I hold it humbly, full in the knowledge that I may be wrong or lack some critical insight.
As an US citizen relocated to the UK (driving for about 4 years) I can offer the following observations.
I, too, believe that the UK's speed cameras are designed to generate revenue rather than increase safety, but perhaps jimicus would be surprised to know why I think that.
The speed cameras don't (reliably) catch people who speed.
If the cameras actually worked all the time, I think you'd find that everyone would actually slow down. What I see now is that only *most* people slam on the their brakes to well below the speed limit when approaching a speed camera, but other drivers (who I can only presume are regular commuters on that stretch of road) have learned which cameras are actually turned on and blow past.
On occasion, I see a camera flash go off, catching someone driving "normally", and I think to myself: if the camera always worked, they'd know and they'd slow down; because it only *sometimes* works, the driver take the chance.
The system I see in the UK for construction areas is called "average speed check", where presumably everyone is photoed going in and out of the construction zone, and mailed a ticket if they have an average speed that is too high. This is the system I'd promote if I were focused on reducing speed if I thought that reducing speed improved saftey. And one critical component is to remove the gambling aspect of the camera; they need to work all the time to create a change in driver behavior.
But I don't think that would be my first choice for automatically monitoring traffic. I think I would try to design a system for measuring distance between vehicles, gauged for longer distances at higher speeds, and send tickets in the post based on that first, before tackling the speed issue. Increasing distance between vehicles (especially on the motorways, but even on the streets of London where I drive most often) would be a big help, IMHO
A different slashdot article just referenced an blog entry titled "Better Than Free" http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly08/kelly08_index.html which points out that "Interpretation" (i.e. the manual for software) is something that people will pay for, even if the original stuff is a free copy.
Just so you don't have to click the link, and to add bulk to my post, the 8 qualities that you'll still be will to pay for are (in the author's opinion):
That will be dictated by the economics of price discrimination (at least, that's what I think). I expect that you will be cramped in like easyJet or RyanAir unless you pay like a coke addict. One of the reasons economy is such a crappy experience is to prevent business class customers from being tempted to save 90% of their ticket price by switching to economy class. To think that the train operators won't take a lesson from the very profitable airlines (think SouthWest in the US) isn't cynical enough.
as an aside....
I really don't have a lot of sympathy for regular business travelers whose corporate policy is to purchase lowest cost tickets. Or rather, I have sympathy for the traveler (I was one of them for about seven years) but I also understand that it isn't the airline making my life miserable; it's my boss. When I went independent, guess what! It was still my boss making my travel horrible. I had no-one to blame but myself. I much preferred pocketing that cash and resting my chin on my crumpled knees in economy given the trade off on cost.
For my vacation travel, same deal. I don't like spending any extra money on the transport. But my wife prefers more comfortable transit, so some compromises occur.
As an extra aside, maybe it would be really nice (or really terrible) for the airlines to have adjustable seat pitch, like in a car. If they could make take one row of seats out and sell the extra 30 inches of legroom to specific passengers, I wonder how high each inch would go for. Would you pay an extras $50 for 1 extra inch? how about $125 for 2 extra inches? Or $500 more for the full 30? If no-one opted to pay for the extra inches, reinstall the seats and just sell tickets for them. That way they could take all the money on the table, and perhaps even add some extra capacity.
Heck, if we could get the FAA to play along, why not just invent a standup restraint system. No seats at all, or maybe like a standup roller coaster restraint system. Then we could really pack them on. For short haul flights, it wouldn't be too uncomfortable. If the tickets got cheap enough, people would pay it, and the airline could still make money.
Oh! I remember now. The reason we can't do that isn't safety on the plane. It's the fact that the extra flights would put huge demand on the flight control system. Which is one of those welfare systems we have to make sure that airlines don't have to pay for the cost doing business. Kinda like how free city streets (to drive on) and free (or reduced price)city street parking (esp. for residents) allow people to drive without paying for all of the costs of driving.
As for terror attacks: I'm sure citizens of Tokyo haven't forgotten (as you have) the Savrin gas attack. As for destruction of other building and property, I'd image that the high speed impact of a hijacked maglev with the center city terminal would cause huge disruption and affect a large number of people. The hijackers don't have to apply the brakes when they're supposed to; remember that the first tower on 9-11 was hit before anyone knew the planes were hijacked).
To CommandNotFound, who said
I don't think rail will be able to compete with air travel and Interstate roads for city-to-city routes in the US. To survive, they would need heavy gov't subsidies, as Amtrak does today.
I can only say "Wow". Rail can't compete with air travel which receives subsidies for
air control via the FAA
security checks via the TSA
airports via local governments
Rail can't compete with Interstate roads which is nothing but a subsidy. Even toll roads are built with pork. But the existence of all those private vehicles is supported by local subsidies for parking and local travel.
Rail can't compete? Just let it try!
I'm not for subsidies in general, so I'd be more supportive of
Funny (as in strange), that I have exactly the opposite opinion!
I mean this respectfully, but I would not object to this system if it objectively recorded __all__ plates indiscriminately (and I use that word deliberately). Recording just the ones that come back with some kind of "hit" looks like it is more prone to abuse. Oh, and the other requirement (which is the kicker!) is that this data MUST be made available to defendants when they are charged with a crime, and SHOULD be made available to people when used as factor in a decision.
Here's my reasoning, as a liberal defender of liberty that I am:
If a database hit is loosely defined, then only "the oppressed" will suffer the unreasonable aspects of this kind of "search and seizure". If a license plate can be flagged without a warrant (i.e. court oversight) just because it is "of interest" then I suspect that the police will find a way to use it to help investigations (duh). And that is a subtle form of abuse. Set these systems up in high crime areas (especially high REPORTED crime areas) and you may find certain ethnic groups and economic classes being targeted.
However, if every license is read and recorded, AND the data is made available to defendants whenever data from the system is used in the investigation, defendants will have the ability to (correctly and justly) show the shortcomings. I always like to remind myself that the state has a compelling interest in prosecuting criminals ONLY in pursuit of justice. There is no justice and no justifiable state interest in getting convictions of citizens: only of convicting the actual perpetrator. The police should NOT think of themselves as the investigation arm of the prosecutor's office. They are the investigation arm of the state, whose compelling interest is in justice.
This is a fantasy, as the (very few) police offices I know (related by marriage/met on the street) seem more interested in convictions than justice. The one I'm related to bragged to me about how eagerly he would have perjured himself (but the judge refused to allow the question instead). My aunt married an asshole (this I knew) but he now draws a pension from CA. And every time I see a patrol car run a red light I get the same slimy feeling and roll my eyes.
I also think it is important to make this data available to defendants whenever it is used as part of the investigation (rather than just a part of the prosecution). It should not be up to the arm of the state expressly charged with getting convictions to decide whether the data is made available to a jury. And the more record collection, the more it could help defend the innocent.
However, a structure of data collection which only records "bad guys" means the data will disproportionally help the convictions over acquittals. This is a mistake, in my humble opinion.
I'd be interested in your response, as I have an open mind about this.
What about those things you've agreed to keep concealed?
So someone says "I have nothing to hide" and you respond "Tell me your passwords to all your subscription websites." Asking this precisely because they've no doubt clicked "I agree" on a some agreement with a "keep your password secret" clause. Or ask them for their bank name, account number, and ATM card PIN.
You can assure them that you won't use the information at all, you'll just post it on slashdot.
Some of the arguments I hear are quite ridiculous, like if healthcare was free then people would abuse it.
This isn't ridiculous. This is an obvious statement of (pragmatic) reality.
Look, you don't go doing extreme sports and go through all the trauma, pain and lengthy recovery just because it's free. The average guy would rather not have to deal with doctors and nurses and hospitals any more than they need to.
And yet, doing extreme sports doesn't strike me as a major cause of preventable health issues in the US. But smoking, not exercising, eating X , or NOT eating Y, drinking alcohol (no wait... in moderation it's good for you), not getting enough sleep, driving carelessly (or over the speed limit)...
Where X is some food compound (like fats, no wait... it's hydrogenated fats, no wait... it's carbohydrates, no wait... it's high GL carbs) and Y is some other food compound (like omega-3 oils, no wait....)
I could go on, but maybe I should just say that the list of common, every-day choices people make when they are young and "don't want to deal with doctors" that affect their health care when they get older strikes me as more relavent than "extreme sports". But even that is a red-herring, as young people don't consume as much health care (in terms of cost) as older people, as you point out.
Nobody asks for a mentally or physically son or daughter so they can have their life upended, no matter if we donate money for equipment and accessibility tools like guide dogs, hearing aids, wheelchairs, ramps and whatnot. Some people just got a big "fuck you" in the lottery of life, which society should work to undo.
And again, this doesn't seem like the driver of costs in the US health care system. But let's say you were to make wheelchairs and hearing aids free, to help solve this big "fuck you" lottery? You know what I think I'd see? I'd see wheelchairs instead of grocery carts abandonded alongside the bustop and in alleys. I'd see hearing aids instead of cigarette butts in the gutters, as people cracked them open for their batteries. I don't even what to think about what would happen if guide dogs were free. I see what happens now to dogs (they're free to a good home at the pound) and it's enough to make you weep -- and for me it's enough to hate my fellow person, and I like cats better.
And I'd ask why don't you see this as abuse of the health care system.
You know, I think if you wanted people to be wasteful of gasoline, you could make it free even though no one reallly enjoys dealing with pumping gas. And if gas where free people would abuse gas. People would drive SUVs where it makes no sense to do so, or high performance sport cars for the daily commute, and public transport numbers would plummet. But if you want to make sure only people who REALLY need to use gas are the ones who do, you'd make it really expensive, and then only the richest people who absolutely need gas would be sure they could get what they "needed", while the ordinary joe would always be worried about it.
Which has nothing to do with creating a health care system that works. Just like ignoring the very real, and pervasive element of abuse is going to do NOTHING towards creating a health care system that works.
Useability beats ideology. I want my GeForce to work, I will use the drivers that work, regardless of license.
Oh really?
Does that mean you use the OS required for most stable (or highest performance -- pick one of the two) drivers for your beloved GeForce? Or that you'll pay whatever it takes to get that license?
Or how about a licenses that requires you to register your contact details with the manufacturer? Or that was for a limited duration? Or that requirees you to get a token over the internet every hour? Or that prevents you from simultaneously using any of a variety of other peripherals (from competing vendors for example). Licenses can be quite specific about the terms of use, and you'll need to read carefully.
In the reall world, many people don't bother reading 'click-through' licenses because they figure they can just do what they want, they won't get caught, and the manufacture wouldn't go after po' lil' ole *me*! But since we are talking specifically about what kind of license we prefer, you might want to consider the ramifications of a blanket statement like 'regardless of license'!
At least a little bit of 'ideology' is what enables 'useability'. If you just want a useable system, use Windows, and the Windows drivers. You'll have to remember to reboot often, and save your work frequently, but it's a 'useable' system. That makes this whole Open Source driver thing is a dead issue to you.
FSF makes a point about *FREE* software, and if they say that the GPL prevents distributing non-free video drivers is a violation (for the distros, not the video companies) I'm inclined to believe them. It may not be what any of the geeks want, but when they wrote the licenses they were trying to maximize the existance of FREE software, not this panty-waisted open source stuff.
So let's say Red Hat cannot distribute binary GPL software that includes a proprietary binary driver because of the requirement of also distributing source code. One possible solution is to make the install process a compilation of a new kernel, pushing the mixing of free and enslaved code onto the user. That's not good for users, so the hope is users won't sell out by using enslaved software and instead choose a more convenient (and also free) solution, and hey! maybe even pay more for that opportunity. That is the win-win solution for the FSF: users start making the 'right' choice regarding software licenses.
Actually, when I worked for typesetting company, our publishers told us they loved putting that little 'recycle' logo on their books. The major cost of the book was the paper, and recycled paper was cheaper for them to use. (Our fees were large, but they could be spread across alot of copies of the tet; you have to buy paper for each copy of the book).
Problem is, recycled paper isn't as high quality. The inks bleed more, so the type isn't as crisp. The paper doesn't age as well. But since the books were college textbooks, the publishers seemed to think that so long as the book lasted one semester, that's all the market really cared about!
The paper used, as I recall, was only 10% post-consumer recycled content, as anything more was too fragile to even print on at the high speeds used.
This whole comment is based on decade-old memories of a company I worked for straight out of college. I wasn't directly involved in any of these discussions, and the facts since then might well have changed. YMMV.
>... but practically everybody has to drive if s/he wants to work in a city.
Nonsense. I don't know what cities you are thinking of, but in the cities I have worked in (Chicago, New York, Philadelphia) cars are not a necessity. They have this thing they call the subway which reaches far out into the suburbs. If you work in the city, you don't even have to live there to avoid using a car.
I don't know how much I can generalize your attitudes from one hyperbolic aside, but promulgating the attitude that cars are a "necessity" promotes a very lazy approach to our transportation needs. It is a mindset that prevents changes to our road policy that could benefit other transportation modes, like walking, cycling, buses, subway, light rail.
For example, free street parking is viewed in some towns (and even some cities!) as a public right. At the very least, the ability to park on the street for a fee (parking meter) in central areas is expected. But in some of those areas, sidewalks for pedestrians and lanes for bicycles are ignored. Apparently everyone drives, but nobody walks!
What's funny (strange, not humorous) about this is how quickly people (not you, necessarily, but I want to make a point) can jump from the the idea that "roads should be paid for by public funds" because they are used by "everyone" to the idea "mass transit should be paid for by the users" because only the users really benefit. I am reminded of a speech I heard by someone from Amtrak defending himself from Congress over the amount of public funding they receive. He pointed out that truckers and air lines get free roads and signaling, paid for by public funds. The argument that Amtrak should compete on a level playing field is apropos, but it is not an argument that would *reduce* public funding of rail traffic.
Back to your statement: why would you suggest that working in a city requires a car, when it seems more likely that working in rural areas requires a car. In cities, whether you live there or in a suburb, a car seems more like a convenience (a big one, granted) then a necessity.
I can't wait for this stuff to get used in a keyboard that lasts for 100 million keystrokes At one keystroke per second, that means over 3 years of continuous use. I'm especially imagining this on those awful membrane keyboards that have been so (un)popular on cheap electronics. I think quality improvements there might be nice.
Slashdot Mirror
REALLY? I didn't know it worked in the US!
Does it work in South American and Asia too?
Well, I interpreted the word 'honour' to mean that Free Software lovers won't give you respect, not that they will violate your rights. So in one sense, they don't respect your right to write proprietary code.
Of course, I believe Stallman does respect your right to write proprietary code. If you work for a company which needs software, you write it, the company owes it, and runs it and Stallman respects that process.
It's just once you cross a 'magic' line that so many people start to misunderstand Stallman. It's when you give (or sell) that software to someone else. Is it right for you to say, "I'm going to give this software to you, but you can't run it on any computer you like, and you can't make any changes to it, you can't let anyone else look at it, and most importantly, you can't share it with anyone else.
There are a lot of people who think it is perfectly ethical to make these limitations. Stallman is not one of those people. Once you give him software, he believes he has the right to run the software for any (legal) purpose, that he has the right to modify the software to run as he wants it, and that he has the right to read the code and learn from it. And as importantly, he has the right to share the software with anyone else of his choosing. He believes he has all these *ethical* rights.
It turns out that he might not have the *legal* right to do all these things. So he follows the law, AND he follows his conscience. And he encourages others to do the right thing. And for this, he is harassed, poked fun of, and maligned. He is called crazy.
He is an idealist, and perhaps he is crazy that the ideals of freedom and of sharing can continue to thrive in the world of software. But I think he prefers to see the world as full of potential, rather than succumbing to despair and fear.
Exactly, Stallman believes in forced sharing, which is not freedom.
Stallman does not believe is forced sharing, but you are right: that would not be freedom.
Stallman does believe that if you have something (like software) and you want to share it with someone else, you should be allowed to do that. Right now there are laws against that. I can't give you a copy of a non-free program (say, Microsoft Word). Or, rather, I can't share the program without breaking the law.
"Freedom" in his mind is giving one person the right to take the hard work of another person and use it for themselves, regardless of whether or not the original creator wanted to share his work.
Name one case where Stallman takes something over the objection of the original creator!? Software? If a programmer writes code and licenses it under the GPL or LGPL or BSD or any other Free License, how can you suggest that the creator did not want to share his work?
Have you read anything that Stallman has written, or have you just been listening to third parties call him names?
Thanks for that, but that's not what I was looking for. I'd like a reference to RMS's last post which contains a personal attack against Miguel.
I found it by finding Miguel's blog where the slashdot comment is repeated, but there is a link to http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/. I followed it, but it has a content-full post with no personal attacks.
The link you just provided is a bit surprising, but it isn't written by RMS. The quote is definitely making the rounds: I read about it yesterday, and Google is turning up many more commentators referring to it.
For example, Thom Holwerda (http://www.osnews.com/story/22225) thinks RMS has 'crossed a line' and the FSF should 'removed him from the stage' and that 'he has lost touch with reality'
It's picked up again by aross who thinks it's hard to believe, but also seems to accept it at face value. http://www.fosslc.org/drupal/node/550
It seems to me as a spectator that name-calling is very alive and well here, as is the postured over-reaction on the part of non-participants. Miguel offers this somewhat dippy comment: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Sep-23.html about how God loves all creatures, including Richard Stallman. The funny thing is, he suggests that RMS might want to talk about how to improve 'Free and Open Source Software', as if RMS has never made any suggestions in that line.
>
I am responding to RMS's last post which is pretty much content free, but does contain another personal attack against me.
Could you give a reference, please?
I read the OP, and I'm familiar with many (older) articles and essays written by RMS. I've never seen RMS make a *personal* attack. I have seen people react to his strong but very nuanced perspective on morals as if they were personal attacks. I've started to understand that other, reasonable, people can interpret his statements very personally, so if you feel attacked, I don't hold it against you.
I have not read anything written by you, so you are establishing a first impression (for me). You say that RMS has "makes up facts" but you link to what is primarily a retraction. Could you be more clear about which facts RMS has made up? I'd like to think that you can forgive a mistake, if it is admitted.
Lastly, you say that RMS attacks his own community, supporting this claim with a footnote about the distinction between "open source" and "free software" being a non-issue. It seems to me that RMS has been very clear that there is an issue, from his perspective. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
Now you may have a different perspective, as is your right. But since RMS has his perspective, and his preference is perfectly clear, I'd really hesitate to say that he attacks his own community on this issue. In my mind, his community is made up of the supporters of free software, and doesn't contain those who prefer open source.
In summary, RMS doesn't make personal attacks on anyone, much less his own community and he doesn't make up facts. If you think differently, I have an open mind, but I need more than your word.
Furthermore, I've seen plenty of startups and even some actors and such that have embraced newer business models that don't necessarily depend on charging for content. I think the companies are terrified of this concept because this generally requires the content to actually be good to get the public to consume it. If the public isn't consuming it, you don't get advertisers and such. Most (not all) products and services out there have required the public to pay first. This was fine back in the day when good customer relations was key to keeping up sales.
I'm not sure I follow your version of history. If you're talking about the history of 'content' then some of the oldest existing business models do not depend on charging for content. Radio stole recorded performances and gave the content away for free. Eventually they had to pay composers (but not performers), and that's still the business model used today. They don't charge for content, and the content isn't famous (on slashdot anyway) for being good. But people still consume it, so they get advertisers. Broadcast TV doesn't charge for content, yet the same business model is in play here too. So 'back in the day when ....' does not refer to a time when providers charged for content universally.
Yes it's true that some business models 'back in the day' charged for content, just as some do today. And yes today we have some companies trying government intervention and/or litigation as a way to get the money, just as we did 'back in the day'.
You seem like someone who would enjoy (and benefit from) reading Lawrence Lessigs' book Free Culture (see http://www.free-culture.cc/toc/) which details some of the history of 'mere copyists' and content 'pirates' who are today's litigants. I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but I don't really think you have a strong grip on the history of content providers. And since I'd like you to succeed in convincing the people who hear you, I think you'd be better off with more historical fact, rather than historical romanticizing.
Just my .02 cents (worth even less these days since George Vaccaro got done with Verizon)
Apple ][e
It's Apple //e.
Apple ][ and Apple ][+ are correct (IIRC) but the //e was always //e.
As someone who changed his name (in the US) I'd like to modify your perspective a bit.
My name is what I say it is among my friends, but that's it, and that's true only because I'm a nice guy. I say my name is 'Ben' so they call me 'Ben'. Not 'Benjamin' not 'BJ' not 'Dude' or 'Bud' or 'Junior'.
I had one acquaintance who liked the name 'Benny' better. I told her I didn't like that name but it made no difference to her. My name stopped being what I said it was and became what *she* said it was, at least as far as she was concerned.
And that experience is replicated with other 'non-friends' like governments. If I want to get a mortgage and buy a house, or if I'd like to drive a car, or travel to a different country (like the UK) the name 'Ben' will not work.
The United Kingdom will not allow me to enter their country without documentation. My government will not grant that documentation with 'any name I choose to call myself'. In practical terms, my name is what the government calls me; it isn't what I call myself (or tell others to call me)
Hi!
I agree with many of the other suggestions found here, and I'm not trying to repeat any of them. I'll suggest that your reading list contain a bit more information than people are generating here. Consider adding to the bibliographic information on your list details like:
* Are there exercises? With answers?
* What are the pre-requisites for attempting to read, and for best understanding. Be honest here, a student can always decide to ignore your 'best advice'.
* Is this a mainstream topic, or (currently considered) a sideline.
* Contents include statement of theorems? Includes proofs? Rigorous or intuitive?
* Is the book mostly on a specific mathematical subject, a range of subjects, or mostly not mathematical (but history, or entertaining instead)
I think if you aren't going to assign reading, but you want to make the book list enticing, you'll be more successful with this kind of information. Your students may not yet have the sophistication to know that so called math books can have a huge range of styles.
A way you might collect this information over time is to require a book-report from the student that contains the answers to those questions a requirement to collect your extra-credit. Then either edit it or include it wholesale into your bibliography.
I'm a big fan of the following books:
**********
*Geometrical Vectors, Gabriel Weinreich, 1998
Exercises, no answers
Contains statement of theorems, with intuitive proofs.
Subject matter: Specific to one area: Vector Calculus. This is a non-standard perspective on a mainstream area.
Prerequisites: For reading, some mathematical maturity. For best understanding, exposure to the standard treatment of Calculus or Vector Calculus.
ISBN 0226890481
**********
*What is the name of this book? Raymond Smullyan, 1986
One several logic puzzle books
Exercises (puzzles) with answers
No theorems
Subject matter: one area: Predicate Logic
Prerequisites: For reading: none. For best understanding: Exposure to predicate calculus, or other basic symbolic logic
ISBN 0671628321
Of course it'll be suggested elsewhere, but I haven't see it yet: Alice in Wonderland, just for fun. (And I can't help but emphasizing Godel, Escher, Bach)
My dad bought me this one... :-)
**********
*The Mathematics of Juggling by Burkard Polster, 2002
Exercises
Theorems, with proofs
Subject matter: Juggling Patterns and Bell Ringing. These are not mainstream subject areas.
Prerequisites: For reading: strong mathematical sophistication or dedicated experience juggling (real objects in your hands) For best understanding: I wouldn't know... I don't think I've got it.
ISBN 0387955135
**********
*The Trachtenberg Speed System of Basic Mathematics, Trachtenberg
I found this book for a few bucks on a sale rack somewhere, but the hardback is selling for about $80 on amazon. Ouch!
It has the sad and gripping story of Jakow Trachtenberg, who was a prisoner in a work camp during WWII. That is where he developed this particular system of mental arithmetic. There are no 'theorems' but the system is justified almost well enough to be proved in the text (after several chapters that have only an explanation of the technique).
If your students are now like I was then, then some like math, think they are good at math, but aren't the best at adding and subtracting. It always felt like I should be better, and I would have loved a way to get better.
ISBN: 0313232008
Hope this helps. I'd love a copy of your compiled list! Consider posting it back to this Slashdot topic, if you have thick enough skin to weather the inevitable criticism. :-)
You could build an Golomb ruler of any length you want pretty easily in a different way. Put ticks at 0,1,3,5,7,15,...2^{n}-1
(I think)
This is a Golomb ruler of order n with length 2^{n)-1. Proof: We need to show if we pick four tick marks, and the distance between the first two equals the distance between the second two then the points are equal.
Pick points nm and pq. Let's also assume that np.
I can assume nm because I measure distances between different points, and I can assume np because the pairs of points are different. (If n=p, and m!=q, then I'll have to renumber my ruler from the other end)
if (2^{m}-1) - (2^{n}-1) = (2^{q}-1) - (2^{p}-1) then
2^m - 2^n = 2^q -2^p, and then factor out the largest common power of 2, which is 2^n
(2^{m-n} -1} = (2^{q-n} - 2^{p-n}
m-n != 0, so the left hand side is odd. But q-n!=0 and p-n!=0 so the number on the right is even.
(2^{m-n} -1} =2^{p-n} * (2^{q-p} -1)
m-n != 0 (because nm) so the number on the left is odd.
p-n != 0, so the number on the right is even. This is a contradiction, showing that my n,m, and p,q cannot measure the same distance.
QED.
The problem is to get the order high, you have to have an exponentially longer ruler. Instead of length 480 for order 25, my ruler is 2^25 - 1 = 33_554_431
Well, if you could use rational numbers, it would be impossible to have any optimal ruler, you could always just scale it down by a factor of two.
so instead of
0 12 29 39 72 91 146 157 160 161 166 191 207 214 258 290 316 354 372 394 396 431 459 467 480
you could have .... you get the idea. (I hope)
0 6 14.5 19.5 36 45.5 73 78.5 80 80.5 83 95.5 103.5 107 128 145 158 177
This new ruler (with rational numbers) has the same order (same number of ticks) and if it isn't a Golomb ruler then the original isn't either. Since it is shorter by half, the original ruler isn't optimal. But this one isn't either, because we can do it again:
0 3 7.25 9.75 ....
(Check my math(logic) -- I've never heard of Golomb rulers before today, so I could easily make a stupid mistake)
Well, I don't think so. Being biased based on the color of skin is not a very good definition of racism, except from a very provincial perspective.
Racism is being biased by race; there are many factors besides skin tone that an individual may use to determine race: it's very subjective. And, I'd like to say, also very cultural.
The example that comes to mind is the (in)famous discrimination that the Irish experienced in (say) New York during the mid to late 1800s. "Irish need not apply" signs weren't posted because of their skin tone.
So I see a tall, thin black man and decide not to bet that I'd beat him in a game of one-on-one basketball. Is that racial bias (I'm a tall, thin white man); is also it racism? By looking at him and trying to assess my chances of beating him in a basketball game, have I really committed as deep cultural sin as 'racism'.
You tell me, after you're done laughing at the question.
Think about this question; answer it, before you continue to read. If I had to bet money on the game (of course, I'd play basketball with a black man, do you think I'm racist or somethign? oh right :-) and I chose to bet on him rather than me, am I guilty of 'racism'? Since I don't have the luxury of waiting for your answer to this question and tailoring my reply accordingly, I'll make a few guesses, and respond individually.
Strawman One: Yes it is racism! Simply knowing that a man is black does not mean you should assume he is a better basketball player than you. You are implying that all a tall black man is good for is playing basketball!
My response: Nope. Not my implication: your inference. Would you think that the only thing white people are good for is playing basketball if I bet on me?
Strawman Two: Yes it is racism. Any assessment of athleticism based on skin tone is stupid. There's a 50-50 chance of you winning against him.
My response: Maybe for the spectators, but I know alot about how I play basketball. You might have to assume I'm a average guy, but I know more.
Strawman Three:Yes, it's racism, but not against blacks. Being racially biased in favor of someone isn't racism against them. It's racism against their alternative groups. So all you've done is confuse the issue of favoring the chances of a black person in a basketball game (not racist) with diminishing the talents of (in my case) white people. That's the racist part. And it's just as wrong to be racist against white as it is to be racist against blacks. You should base your decision on something other than race!
My response; Here's where I think we agree in meaning even if we can't agree on the phrases. The racial bias is a marker for some kind of racial injustice, but it gets a bit complicated to find the 'right' answer to these dilemmas (I suppose I could just skip the bet). So while I might have the impulse to bet against myself, I really ought to use more relevant information before I choose to bet against myself. That's being racially biased without being racist.
Strawman Four: You're not being racist by betting against yourself, you're just going to throw the game
Oh, please! What fun is that?
Interesting. Since I've grown up with license plates being a fact of life, I've never thought about the privacy opportunities that would be possible if there were no license plates. Instead, I've wondered why there hasn't been a push to put RFID tags in license plates.
My reasoning is that since the plates are already publicly displayed, instead of police forces spending bongo bucks on cameras and OCR software, we could put the RFID tag in the plate and use cheap reading technology to acquire the license number.
I recognize that this is a(nother) scope creep: automating the reading/tracking of license plates means all sorts of interesting applications would be possible. I live in England, and we have speed cameras (and in some places, average speed cameras). I live in London, where the congestion charge and "low emission zone" fees are currently in force. If vehicle RFID readers were widely deployed, there could be a more flexible charging of those use fees (or taxes?).
I'm not sure how I feel about the issue. I am very uncomfortable with giving law enforcement more data than is available to defendants. I have a deep suspicion that police officers and (in the US) district attorneys care much more about convictions than justice. I also have deep suspicions that uniform collection of (e.g.) speeding cars does not lead to uniform (i.e. equal) enforcement. I do not think it is a good idea for the police/DA to have complete records of every speeding car, and then have them pick and choose who will receive a ticket. I also think it is unethical for the police/DA to pick someone up of suspicion of a crime (say disturbing the peace) and then run their plates through the database and discover they were speeding 3 days ago, and charge them for speeding. I worry about the perception that if you go to a political demonstration, you'll get "the book" thrown at you.
I was very much in favor of "speed cameras" because I thought it would result in even enforcement. I know now that it does not. For some reason the system of speed cameras still allows for variable enforcement, and so gives leverage to the police/DA to prosecute non-crimes.
Perhaps I am just too suspicious of our boys and girls in blue.
After listening to my father (adjunct faculty in the Math Department) complain about new editions ONLY changing the numbers of the exercises, and NEVER correcting typos in the text, I have come to believe something different.
... but teachers have no standing to complain that the exercises numbers have changed, so they have to force their students to buy new texts. In other words, teachers "force" students to pay the publisher to do the job they (teachers) could do themselves: creating homework sets.
The reason the second hand market needs to be suppressed is not because PUBLISHERS are greedy. It's because PROFESSORS and UNIVERSITIES are lazy (or cheap). [Disclaimer: perhaps it's true that they don't get paid enough to do the work they shirk.]
The reason the books have intrinsic value to the student is the main body of text. The reason the books have value to the teacher/school is the exercises. Yet the teacher gets the text for free from the publisher, and normally gets a copy with the answers to the exercises. They get something of high value, but pay nothing? TANSTAAFL applies.
Students may have standing to complain about the cost of a Calculus text where the curriculum hasn't changed since 1860 (WAG), but teachers (in my humble opinion -- please enlighten me with constructive criticism of my argument)
This "problem" can be quickly and easily solved by teachers who don't use the exercises in the book at all. Put a copy of the solutions in the reserve reading library (ask your best student to TeX a copy and post it on the class' website?) to allow the exercises to fulfill a useful teaching purpose: worked examples, to the standard you require on exams.
So teachers shouldn't complain about this student/publisher money transfer. Instead, they should smile with economic glee that they have found a way to cheapen their expertise and knowledge to the point that they do not get compensated. The money goes straight from the consumer (student) to the producer (publisher). Aren't markets marvelous!
As I said, this is only my opinion. Harsh and bitter as it may sound, I hold it humbly, full in the knowledge that I may be wrong or lack some critical insight.
As an US citizen relocated to the UK (driving for about 4 years) I can offer the following observations.
I, too, believe that the UK's speed cameras are designed to generate revenue rather than increase safety, but perhaps jimicus would be surprised to know why I think that.
The speed cameras don't (reliably) catch people who speed.
If the cameras actually worked all the time, I think you'd find that everyone would actually slow down. What I see now is that only *most* people slam on the their brakes to well below the speed limit when approaching a speed camera, but other drivers (who I can only presume are regular commuters on that stretch of road) have learned which cameras are actually turned on and blow past.
On occasion, I see a camera flash go off, catching someone driving "normally", and I think to myself: if the camera always worked, they'd know and they'd slow down; because it only *sometimes* works, the driver take the chance.
The system I see in the UK for construction areas is called "average speed check", where presumably everyone is photoed going in and out of the construction zone, and mailed a ticket if they have an average speed that is too high. This is the system I'd promote if I were focused on reducing speed if I thought that reducing speed improved saftey. And one critical component is to remove the gambling aspect of the camera; they need to work all the time to create a change in driver behavior.
But I don't think that would be my first choice for automatically monitoring traffic. I think I would try to design a system for measuring distance between vehicles, gauged for longer distances at higher speeds, and send tickets in the post based on that first, before tackling the speed issue. Increasing distance between vehicles (especially on the motorways, but even on the streets of London where I drive most often) would be a big help, IMHO
That will be dictated by the economics of price discrimination (at least, that's what I think). I expect that you will be cramped in like easyJet or RyanAir unless you pay like a coke addict. One of the reasons economy is such a crappy experience is to prevent business class customers from being tempted to save 90% of their ticket price by switching to economy class. To think that the train operators won't take a lesson from the very profitable airlines (think SouthWest in the US) isn't cynical enough.
As for terror attacks: I'm sure citizens of Tokyo haven't forgotten (as you have) the Savrin gas attack. As for destruction of other building and property, I'd image that the high speed impact of a hijacked maglev with the center city terminal would cause huge disruption and affect a large number of people. The hijackers don't have to apply the brakes when they're supposed to; remember that the first tower on 9-11 was hit before anyone knew the planes were hijacked).
To CommandNotFound, who said
I can only say "Wow". Rail can't compete with air travel which receives subsidies for
Rail can't compete with Interstate roads which is nothing but a subsidy. Even toll roads are built with pork. But the existence of all those private vehicles is supported by local subsidies for parking and local travel.
Rail can't compete? Just let it try!
I'm not for subsidies in general, so I'd be more supportive of
Funny (as in strange), that I have exactly the opposite opinion!
I mean this respectfully, but I would not object to this system if it objectively recorded __all__ plates indiscriminately (and I use that word deliberately). Recording just the ones that come back with some kind of "hit" looks like it is more prone to abuse. Oh, and the other requirement (which is the kicker!) is that this data MUST be made available to defendants when they are charged with a crime, and SHOULD be made available to people when used as factor in a decision.
Here's my reasoning, as a liberal defender of liberty that I am:
If a database hit is loosely defined, then only "the oppressed" will suffer the unreasonable aspects of this kind of "search and seizure". If a license plate can be flagged without a warrant (i.e. court oversight) just because it is "of interest" then I suspect that the police will find a way to use it to help investigations (duh). And that is a subtle form of abuse. Set these systems up in high crime areas (especially high REPORTED crime areas) and you may find certain ethnic groups and economic classes being targeted.
However, if every license is read and recorded, AND the data is made available to defendants whenever data from the system is used in the investigation, defendants will have the ability to (correctly and justly) show the shortcomings. I always like to remind myself that the state has a compelling interest in prosecuting criminals ONLY in pursuit of justice. There is no justice and no justifiable state interest in getting convictions of citizens: only of convicting the actual perpetrator. The police should NOT think of themselves as the investigation arm of the prosecutor's office. They are the investigation arm of the state, whose compelling interest is in justice.
This is a fantasy, as the (very few) police offices I know (related by marriage/met on the street) seem more interested in convictions than justice. The one I'm related to bragged to me about how eagerly he would have perjured himself (but the judge refused to allow the question instead). My aunt married an asshole (this I knew) but he now draws a pension from CA. And every time I see a patrol car run a red light I get the same slimy feeling and roll my eyes.
I also think it is important to make this data available to defendants whenever it is used as part of the investigation (rather than just a part of the prosecution). It should not be up to the arm of the state expressly charged with getting convictions to decide whether the data is made available to a jury. And the more record collection, the more it could help defend the innocent.
However, a structure of data collection which only records "bad guys" means the data will disproportionally help the convictions over acquittals. This is a mistake, in my humble opinion.
I'd be interested in your response, as I have an open mind about this.
What about those things you've agreed to keep concealed?
So someone says "I have nothing to hide" and you respond "Tell me your passwords to all your subscription websites." Asking this precisely because they've no doubt clicked "I agree" on a some agreement with a "keep your password secret" clause. Or ask them for their bank name, account number, and ATM card PIN.
You can assure them that you won't use the information at all, you'll just post it on slashdot.
And yet, doing extreme sports doesn't strike me as a major cause of preventable health issues in the US. But smoking, not exercising, eating X , or NOT eating Y, drinking alcohol (no wait ... in moderation it's good for you), not getting enough sleep, driving carelessly (or over the speed limit)...
Where X is some food compound (like fats, no wait ... it's hydrogenated fats, no wait ... it's carbohydrates, no wait ... it's high GL carbs) and Y is some other food compound (like omega-3 oils, no wait....)
I could go on, but maybe I should just say that the list of common, every-day choices people make when they are young and "don't want to deal with doctors" that affect their health care when they get older strikes me as more relavent than "extreme sports". But even that is a red-herring, as young people don't consume as much health care (in terms of cost) as older people, as you point out. And again, this doesn't seem like the driver of costs in the US health care system. But let's say you were to make wheelchairs and hearing aids free, to help solve this big "fuck you" lottery? You know what I think I'd see? I'd see wheelchairs instead of grocery carts abandonded alongside the bustop and in alleys. I'd see hearing aids instead of cigarette butts in the gutters, as people cracked them open for their batteries. I don't even what to think about what would happen if guide dogs were free. I see what happens now to dogs (they're free to a good home at the pound) and it's enough to make you weep -- and for me it's enough to hate my fellow person, and I like cats better.And I'd ask why don't you see this as abuse of the health care system.
You know, I think if you wanted people to be wasteful of gasoline, you could make it free even though no one reallly enjoys dealing with pumping gas. And if gas where free people would abuse gas. People would drive SUVs where it makes no sense to do so, or high performance sport cars for the daily commute, and public transport numbers would plummet. But if you want to make sure only people who REALLY need to use gas are the ones who do, you'd make it really expensive, and then only the richest people who absolutely need gas would be sure they could get what they "needed", while the ordinary joe would always be worried about it.
Which has nothing to do with creating a health care system that works. Just like ignoring the very real, and pervasive element of abuse is going to do NOTHING towards creating a health care system that works.
This is a neat idea. I also wonder if the style of writing *vertically* helps comprehension as well.
Oh really?
Does that mean you use the OS required for most stable (or highest performance -- pick one of the two) drivers for your beloved GeForce? Or that you'll pay whatever it takes to get that license?
Or how about a licenses that requires you to register your contact details with the manufacturer? Or that was for a limited duration? Or that requirees you to get a token over the internet every hour? Or that prevents you from simultaneously using any of a variety of other peripherals (from competing vendors for example). Licenses can be quite specific about the terms of use, and you'll need to read carefully.
In the reall world, many people don't bother reading 'click-through' licenses because they figure they can just do what they want, they won't get caught, and the manufacture wouldn't go after po' lil' ole *me*! But since we are talking specifically about what kind of license we prefer, you might want to consider the ramifications of a blanket statement like 'regardless of license'!
At least a little bit of 'ideology' is what enables 'useability'. If you just want a useable system, use Windows, and the Windows drivers. You'll have to remember to reboot often, and save your work frequently, but it's a 'useable' system. That makes this whole Open Source driver thing is a dead issue to you.
FSF makes a point about *FREE* software, and if they say that the GPL prevents distributing non-free video drivers is a violation (for the distros, not the video companies) I'm inclined to believe them. It may not be what any of the geeks want, but when they wrote the licenses they were trying to maximize the existance of FREE software, not this panty-waisted open source stuff.
So let's say Red Hat cannot distribute binary GPL software that includes a proprietary binary driver because of the requirement of also distributing source code. One possible solution is to make the install process a compilation of a new kernel, pushing the mixing of free and enslaved code onto the user. That's not good for users, so the hope is users won't sell out by using enslaved software and instead choose a more convenient (and also free) solution, and hey! maybe even pay more for that opportunity. That is the win-win solution for the FSF: users start making the 'right' choice regarding software licenses.
Actually, when I worked for typesetting company, our publishers told us they loved putting that little 'recycle' logo on their books. The major cost of the book was the paper, and recycled paper was cheaper for them to use. (Our fees were large, but they could be spread across alot of copies of the tet; you have to buy paper for each copy of the book).
Problem is, recycled paper isn't as high quality. The inks bleed more, so the type isn't as crisp. The paper doesn't age as well. But since the books were college textbooks, the publishers seemed to think that so long as the book lasted one semester, that's all the market really cared about!
The paper used, as I recall, was only 10% post-consumer recycled content, as anything more was too fragile to even print on at the high speeds used.
This whole comment is based on decade-old memories of a company I worked for straight out of college. I wasn't directly involved in any of these discussions, and the facts since then might well have changed. YMMV.
(offtopic walmart anyway)
Nonsense. I don't know what cities you are thinking of, but in the cities I have worked in (Chicago, New York, Philadelphia) cars are not a necessity. They have this thing they call the subway which reaches far out into the suburbs. If you work in the city, you don't even have to live there to avoid using a car.
I don't know how much I can generalize your attitudes from one hyperbolic aside, but promulgating the attitude that cars are a "necessity" promotes a very lazy approach to our transportation needs. It is a mindset that prevents changes to our road policy that could benefit other transportation modes, like walking, cycling, buses, subway, light rail.
For example, free street parking is viewed in some towns (and even some cities!) as a public right. At the very least, the ability to park on the street for a fee (parking meter) in central areas is expected. But in some of those areas, sidewalks for pedestrians and lanes for bicycles are ignored. Apparently everyone drives, but nobody walks!
What's funny (strange, not humorous) about this is how quickly people (not you, necessarily, but I want to make a point) can jump from the the idea that "roads should be paid for by public funds" because they are used by "everyone" to the idea "mass transit should be paid for by the users" because only the users really benefit. I am reminded of a speech I heard by someone from Amtrak defending himself from Congress over the amount of public funding they receive. He pointed out that truckers and air lines get free roads and signaling, paid for by public funds. The argument that Amtrak should compete on a level playing field is apropos, but it is not an argument that would *reduce* public funding of rail traffic.
Back to your statement: why would you suggest that working in a city requires a car, when it seems more likely that working in rural areas requires a car. In cities, whether you live there or in a suburb, a car seems more like a convenience (a big one, granted) then a necessity.
I can't wait for this stuff to get used in a keyboard that lasts for 100 million keystrokes At one keystroke per second, that means over 3 years of continuous use. I'm especially imagining this on those awful membrane keyboards that have been so (un)popular on cheap electronics. I think quality improvements there might be nice.